Originally posted by Dale:
This whole discussion assumes that man has some good of his own and also that "tyrany" is always physical and financial opression.
1. It assumes no such thing. It does take into account basic human survival instincts. If one is given a choice between tyranny, torture, and terror and democracy, they will chose the latter.
2. When I talk about tyrannical governments, I am referring to governments who oppress their people by suppressing free speech, free elections, starving their people, torturing, raping, and murdering their own people. But, the major difference between a fear society and a free society is the freedom of speech and right to free elections, IMO.
We do not really have much freedon here in the US anymore like we once did.[/QUOTE]
Like we once did? When? I think you will have a hard time convincing Black Americans of that idea. They actually have more freedom now than they did under the original draft of the Constitution.
The difference is that we are very well treated (for the most part) but we still must have permission to carry a firearm, we must pay "rent" to "own" property, we really don't even own our cars.
Did you know that if you get drunk and you have a designated driver, you can be arrested for public intoxication from the pasenger seat?[/QUOTE]
Wow. For someone who lives under the thumb of tyranny, you sure are bold in the way you criticize your government. Is that because you live in a free society instead of a fear society? Is that because you have the right of free speech? When was the last time you were thrown in prison, tortured, killed, had members of your family raped, tortured, thrown in prison, and / or killed because you spoke out against your government? Did you vote in the last election? You see, in a fear society (tyrannical government), they would never allow you to do these things because it would cause them to lose more and more power. Now, why is that? Is it because people don't really want to live under tyranny? If people like that form of government so much, why not allow free speech and a free election?
If you do not believe that man is totally depraved then you will of course think that "if given the choice" he will always make the best one. [/QUOTE]
You are barking up the wrong tree here. I believe in total depravity. Given the best choices, people don't always make the best choices. But, it isn't because they actively wish to bring more pain and suffering into their lives. It isn't because they don't want to be happy. It is because, many times, they honestly don't understand the long term consequences of their actions. Teen agers are told all the time the dangers of pre-marital sex. But, they are living in the pleasure of the moment many times and don't realize how dangerous it really is. If they comprehended how bad it would be for them, they would never choose to do so. Bottom line is, people don't choose wrong because they want to suffer under tyranny. People instinctively make decisions in life that they think will make their lives more pleasurable.
However, we are slaves to sin and we will always perfer that unless God gives us grace to overcome it.[/QUOTE]
When given a choice, people typically choose the way that they percieve will bring more pleasure and less pain in their lives. Of course, on the other hand, if they are not given a choice, as it is under tyrannical fear societies, they typically will become what Sharansky calls double-thinkers. They might not agree with the government, but they would never publicly speak their dissent out of fear of reprisals. That is, unless they are given a choice. Just look at the Ukraine. How long do you think those protests would have lasted under Stalin? What do you think the outcome would have been? I garantee you it would have been a lot different than what we recently witnessed.
Most people don't want to pay the price for freedom.[/QUOTE]
And yet, thousands of Iraqi soldiers are fighting and dying for their freedom as we speak. The Soviet dissidents, like Sharansky were willing to pay a heavy price for freedom.
The reason that The US works as it does and people love it so well is that we have the best form of slavery of the people that anyone can remember.
There are some annoyances of course, but even though we don't like getting a percentage of every pay check taken out, we get a nice check every month when we are old (is is every month? I am way too young for that, lol)
We don't have the right to travel or to carry a firearm but they will give that PRIVELEDGE to just about anyone that asks and pays a small fee.
For instance, I would like to start carrying a handgun and I will probably go get a permit this week for it. Under out constitution, I should have that right but we don't anymore.[/QUOTE]
And yet, here you are, openly complaining about your "slavemasters". Please tell me the last time a slaveowner allowed such insolence from their slaves. Your comparison of life today in America to the lives of slaves is offensive to the past slaves who truly knew what tyranny and oppression was. As much as you would like to make yourself out to be a victim of your government, you cannot escape the fact that you were allowed to vote for your government, allowed to openly criticize your government, and that any time you would like to leave the USA, you could. The same could not be said of the Soviet Jewish Refuseniks of the Iron Curtain. They truly despised the true tyranny they lived under, and truly wanted to leave. The USSR would not allow them to emigrate. This is part of the reason people like Sharansky and Sakarov ended up in prison. If you truly were as oppressed as you say you are, you could leave anytime you wished. But, then again, there is the paradox, a nation who is tyrannical also allows its people to freely emigrate and furthermore, has more people trying to immigrate than I think any other nation on earth. Your idea of American oppression doesn't add up. If America was as bad as you are trying to paint it to be, we would have all emmigrated to Canada or Mexico by now, and certainly would not be having the problem with Immigration from Canada and Mexico that we have right now. Now would we?
The whole point here is that most of the time people will take the path of least resistance. A tyrant that keeps food on the table of his subject will not have to worry much about revolt.[/QUOTE]
Of course, the logical fallacy with that is that most two-bit dictator tyrants don't put food on the average person's table and give decent medical care to its people. They horde it all for themselves while they oppress their own people. A perfect case in point would be Arafat, who was a millionaire who horded all that money for himself, his wife in Paris, and terrorists organizations. The average Palestinian, however, lives in squaller with inadaquate medical facilities. Another case in point would be Saddam. If you check out the first hand testimonies of Iraqi Dissidents who fled Iraq for the USA, you will find that the picture of Saddam as a benevolent dictator is really false:
www.womenforiraq.org
Someone earlier talked about the cycles that we tend to go through, that was very accurate.
So to sum up the answer to your question, freedom can rule but only by God's grace and history shows that it never lasts long. [/QUOTE]
I would argue that not only has freedom stood the test of time in the USA, but it has grown to include the black slaves in America, and Japan, Afganistan, the Former Soviet Union, and Europe around the world. It will soon claim another victory in Iraq, and I hope also in a new, peaceful Palestinian state. I realize that these changes will not occur right away, but I do believe that if we discard the tired old policies of Kissinger's detente, and confront the enemies of freedom instead of pacifying them, that we will see it in our time. Just think where we would be today if Reagan had not confronted evil in his time; or if FDR had not confronted evil in his time; or if America had not confronted evil within in its own country (slavery).
Joseph Botwinick
[ December 13, 2004, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: Joseph_Botwinick ]
